: > First, Statements and Reified statements are not the same thing.
:
: Agree.
:
: > Statements are uniquely defined by their subject/predicate/object. The
spec says so (section 5, item 4). They are therefore what we sometimes
called "abstract statement". The spec does *not* say that they are
resources.
:
: Agree (with reservations). That's the way mathematicians talk about
things and that's how they become abstractions. The Semantic Web, however,
will not be an abstraction, it will be a collection of real statements each
of which gains its unique identity (and its
: meaning) from its context of utterance.
Graham Klyne has made the useful distinction betweent the instance of triple
(a unique set theoeretical/mathematical member thing of the set of all
Statements) and its machine representation(s). Accepting this distinction I
believe can square Dan's "who polices the triples?" concerns and Sergey's
argument that triples are unique. What is left then is how to bind/unify our
representations of a triple: I think there's enough iq and will on this list
to achieve consistency (or consistency as damn) across implementations.
I'm happy to fall in with a statement having a fourth id element that is the
uniquely identifying resource of that statement. That's what I've done
before last week, undone this week and will redo real soon now. Are there
any implementations that *don't* do this btw?
If you haven't done so already,
<http://public.research.mimesweeper.com/RDF/RDFContexts.html> from Graham is
well worth a read and is synthetic (synpathetic?) with Dan's post on rdf
spaces.
-Bill de hÃra